With respect to the points raised by Mr. Paradis, I addressed them at the outset but I will quickly review them again.
First of all, the addition of a 12-month period after seven years is a positive change, from our perspective. A term of six months, rather than one month—even though that doesn't change the 24-month timeframe—is a positive change as well, because it allows us to take action and possibly change the direction the wind is blowing in. Those six months will allow us to engage in discussions, negotiations, ad campaigns and basically do whatever we need to do by way of communication.
As regards the flexibility committee, that, too, is something we see as being positive. There is no doubt in our minds that the Americans already know quite enough about flexibility. In fact, we ourselves went and explained to them how important it was where commercial transactions are concerned. We can assume that they know something about this. The Americans will certainly be discussing this with their own industry, which is already well aware of the issues.
The Americans have assured us that we will be heard as regard anti-circumvention. The goal is really to concentrate on softwood lumber, not on the forest management system. You know what that involves. A province could argue that in the agreement, it talks about “forest management systems” and that as a result, it can't make any changes. Let me give you an example. If a change were to be made with respect to pulp wood, which is worth maybe 25¢ a cubic metre, and pine beetle wood in British Columbia, they might be able to argue that our forest management system has changed. That would penalize us, even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with softwood lumber.
As for your question about the benefits of this agreement, I already answered that extensively in my reply to Mr. Lemieux.